Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 581 | control, N = 291 | treatment, N = 291 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 58 | 50.60 ± 12.71 (25 - 74) | 49.40 ± 13.03 (25 - 74) | 51.80 ± 12.50 (31 - 72) | 0.476 |
gender | 58 | 0.780 | |||
f | 39 (67%) | 19 (66%) | 20 (69%) | ||
m | 19 (33%) | 10 (34%) | 9 (31%) | ||
occupation | 58 | 0.923 | |||
day_training | 1 (1.7%) | 1 (3.4%) | 0 (0%) | ||
full_time | 6 (10%) | 4 (14%) | 2 (6.9%) | ||
homemaker | 4 (6.9%) | 2 (6.9%) | 2 (6.9%) | ||
other | 2 (3.4%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (6.9%) | ||
part_time | 9 (16%) | 5 (17%) | 4 (14%) | ||
retired | 14 (24%) | 6 (21%) | 8 (28%) | ||
self_employ | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
student | 1 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
t_and_e | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
unemploy | 17 (29%) | 9 (31%) | 8 (28%) | ||
marital | 58 | >0.999 | |||
divore | 5 (8.6%) | 3 (10%) | 2 (6.9%) | ||
married | 13 (22%) | 6 (21%) | 7 (24%) | ||
none | 34 (59%) | 17 (59%) | 17 (59%) | ||
seperation | 3 (5.2%) | 2 (6.9%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
widow | 3 (5.2%) | 1 (3.4%) | 2 (6.9%) | ||
edu | 58 | 0.941 | |||
bachelor | 18 (31%) | 9 (31%) | 9 (31%) | ||
diploma | 9 (16%) | 6 (21%) | 3 (10%) | ||
hd_ad | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
postgraduate | 6 (10%) | 3 (10%) | 3 (10%) | ||
primary | 4 (6.9%) | 1 (3.4%) | 3 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 4 (6.9%) | 2 (6.9%) | 2 (6.9%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 14 (24%) | 7 (24%) | 7 (24%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 1 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
fam_income | 58 | 0.817 | |||
10001_12000 | 3 (5.2%) | 1 (3.4%) | 2 (6.9%) | ||
12001_14000 | 3 (5.2%) | 2 (6.9%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 5 (8.6%) | 2 (6.9%) | 3 (10%) | ||
16001_18000 | 2 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | 1 (3.4%) | ||
18001_20000 | 3 (5.2%) | 3 (10%) | 0 (0%) | ||
20001_above | 9 (16%) | 6 (21%) | 3 (10%) | ||
2001_4000 | 6 (10%) | 3 (10%) | 3 (10%) | ||
4001_6000 | 9 (16%) | 4 (14%) | 5 (17%) | ||
6001_8000 | 6 (10%) | 3 (10%) | 3 (10%) | ||
8001_10000 | 4 (6.9%) | 1 (3.4%) | 3 (10%) | ||
below_2000 | 8 (14%) | 3 (10%) | 5 (17%) | ||
medication | 58 | 48 (83%) | 25 (86%) | 23 (79%) | 0.487 |
onset_duration | 58 | 15.09 ± 12.16 (0 - 56) | 17.01 ± 13.49 (1 - 56) | 13.17 ± 10.56 (0 - 35) | 0.233 |
onset_age | 58 | 35.51 ± 13.74 (15 - 64) | 32.39 ± 11.95 (16 - 55) | 38.63 ± 14.87 (15 - 64) | 0.084 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 581 | control, N = 291 | treatment, N = 291 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 58 | 3.24 ± 1.22 (1 - 5) | 3.21 ± 1.26 (1 - 5) | 3.28 ± 1.19 (1 - 5) | 0.832 |
recovery_stage_b | 58 | 17.98 ± 2.65 (9 - 23) | 17.93 ± 2.84 (9 - 23) | 18.03 ± 2.49 (14 - 23) | 0.883 |
ras_confidence | 58 | 30.22 ± 4.73 (19 - 40) | 29.76 ± 4.34 (19 - 40) | 30.69 ± 5.13 (20 - 39) | 0.459 |
ras_willingness | 58 | 12.12 ± 1.99 (7 - 15) | 12.07 ± 1.77 (9 - 15) | 12.17 ± 2.22 (7 - 15) | 0.845 |
ras_goal | 58 | 17.45 ± 2.87 (12 - 24) | 17.48 ± 2.73 (12 - 23) | 17.41 ± 3.04 (12 - 24) | 0.928 |
ras_reliance | 58 | 13.29 ± 2.91 (8 - 20) | 13.07 ± 2.72 (8 - 18) | 13.52 ± 3.11 (8 - 20) | 0.562 |
ras_domination | 58 | 9.95 ± 2.24 (3 - 15) | 10.48 ± 1.88 (7 - 15) | 9.41 ± 2.46 (3 - 14) | 0.068 |
symptom | 58 | 30.12 ± 9.75 (14 - 56) | 29.66 ± 9.27 (14 - 48) | 30.59 ± 10.35 (15 - 56) | 0.720 |
slof_work | 58 | 22.22 ± 4.83 (10 - 30) | 22.41 ± 4.52 (15 - 30) | 22.03 ± 5.19 (10 - 30) | 0.768 |
slof_relationship | 58 | 25.52 ± 5.92 (11 - 35) | 25.34 ± 6.18 (13 - 35) | 25.69 ± 5.75 (11 - 35) | 0.827 |
satisfaction | 58 | 20.72 ± 6.48 (5 - 30) | 19.38 ± 6.06 (5 - 29) | 22.07 ± 6.71 (5 - 30) | 0.115 |
mhc_emotional | 58 | 11.19 ± 3.71 (4 - 18) | 10.97 ± 3.09 (6 - 17) | 11.41 ± 4.28 (4 - 18) | 0.649 |
mhc_social | 58 | 14.50 ± 5.08 (6 - 26) | 14.93 ± 5.09 (7 - 26) | 14.07 ± 5.12 (6 - 23) | 0.523 |
mhc_psychological | 58 | 21.81 ± 5.97 (6 - 36) | 21.48 ± 5.70 (10 - 33) | 22.14 ± 6.30 (6 - 36) | 0.680 |
resilisnce | 58 | 16.52 ± 4.57 (6 - 25) | 16.28 ± 4.46 (6 - 24) | 16.76 ± 4.73 (7 - 25) | 0.691 |
social_provision | 58 | 13.67 ± 3.05 (5 - 20) | 13.38 ± 2.72 (8 - 20) | 13.97 ± 3.36 (5 - 19) | 0.469 |
els_value_living | 58 | 17.16 ± 2.97 (5 - 23) | 16.72 ± 2.52 (12 - 22) | 17.59 ± 3.35 (5 - 23) | 0.273 |
els_life_fulfill | 58 | 12.86 ± 3.27 (4 - 18) | 11.83 ± 3.12 (5 - 17) | 13.90 ± 3.14 (4 - 18) | 0.015 |
els | 58 | 30.02 ± 5.54 (9 - 40) | 28.55 ± 4.53 (20 - 36) | 31.48 ± 6.12 (9 - 40) | 0.043 |
social_connect | 58 | 26.93 ± 9.36 (8 - 48) | 26.93 ± 8.11 (8 - 45) | 26.93 ± 10.61 (8 - 48) | >0.999 |
shs_agency | 58 | 14.26 ± 4.58 (3 - 20) | 13.66 ± 4.25 (3 - 20) | 14.86 ± 4.89 (3 - 20) | 0.320 |
shs_pathway | 58 | 16.50 ± 3.74 (4 - 22) | 15.93 ± 3.50 (8 - 22) | 17.07 ± 3.95 (4 - 22) | 0.250 |
shs | 58 | 30.76 ± 7.78 (7 - 42) | 29.59 ± 7.37 (14 - 41) | 31.93 ± 8.12 (7 - 42) | 0.255 |
esteem | 58 | 12.52 ± 1.25 (10 - 15) | 12.55 ± 1.15 (10 - 14) | 12.48 ± 1.35 (10 - 15) | 0.835 |
mlq_search | 58 | 14.81 ± 3.47 (3 - 21) | 14.79 ± 3.27 (6 - 21) | 14.83 ± 3.71 (3 - 20) | 0.970 |
mlq_presence | 58 | 13.60 ± 4.06 (3 - 21) | 13.86 ± 3.13 (6 - 20) | 13.34 ± 4.86 (3 - 21) | 0.632 |
mlq | 58 | 28.41 ± 6.81 (6 - 41) | 28.66 ± 6.03 (12 - 40) | 28.17 ± 7.62 (6 - 41) | 0.790 |
empower | 58 | 19.55 ± 4.26 (6 - 28) | 19.24 ± 3.88 (11 - 24) | 19.86 ± 4.67 (6 - 28) | 0.584 |
ismi_resistance | 58 | 14.62 ± 2.80 (5 - 20) | 14.48 ± 2.34 (11 - 19) | 14.76 ± 3.24 (5 - 20) | 0.711 |
ismi_discrimation | 58 | 11.36 ± 3.40 (5 - 19) | 12.41 ± 2.86 (5 - 18) | 10.31 ± 3.61 (5 - 19) | 0.017 |
sss_affective | 58 | 9.91 ± 4.07 (3 - 18) | 10.66 ± 3.56 (3 - 18) | 9.17 ± 4.46 (3 - 18) | 0.167 |
sss_behavior | 58 | 9.66 ± 4.17 (3 - 18) | 10.52 ± 4.07 (3 - 18) | 8.79 ± 4.15 (3 - 18) | 0.116 |
sss_cognitive | 58 | 8.28 ± 4.20 (3 - 18) | 8.69 ± 4.38 (3 - 18) | 7.86 ± 4.03 (3 - 18) | 0.458 |
sss | 58 | 27.84 ± 11.56 (9 - 54) | 29.86 ± 10.74 (9 - 54) | 25.83 ± 12.18 (9 - 54) | 0.186 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.21 | 0.226 | 2.76, 3.65 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.069 | 0.319 | -0.556, 0.694 | 0.829 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.291 | 0.342 | -0.379, 0.961 | 0.399 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.003 | 0.468 | -0.920, 0.914 | 0.995 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.511 | 16.9, 18.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.103 | 0.722 | -1.31, 1.52 | 0.886 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.154 | 0.697 | -1.52, 1.21 | 0.826 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.610 | 0.950 | -1.25, 2.47 | 0.524 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.8 | 0.941 | 27.9, 31.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.931 | 1.331 | -1.68, 3.54 | 0.487 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.497 | 0.990 | -1.44, 2.44 | 0.619 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.074 | 1.346 | -2.56, 2.71 | 0.956 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.378 | 11.3, 12.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.103 | 0.535 | -0.945, 1.15 | 0.847 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.883 | 0.362 | -1.59, -0.174 | 0.020 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.715 | 0.491 | -0.248, 1.68 | 0.155 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.028 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.5 | 0.580 | 16.3, 18.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.069 | 0.820 | -1.68, 1.54 | 0.933 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.852 | 0.625 | -2.08, 0.373 | 0.181 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.47 | 0.850 | -0.193, 3.14 | 0.091 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.531 | 12.0, 14.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.448 | 0.751 | -1.02, 1.92 | 0.552 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.232 | 0.468 | -0.685, 1.15 | 0.623 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.733 | 0.635 | -0.512, 1.98 | 0.256 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.031 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.411 | 9.68, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.07 | 0.581 | -2.21, 0.070 | 0.070 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.471 | 0.543 | -1.54, 0.594 | 0.391 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.32 | 0.741 | -0.128, 2.78 | 0.081 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.039 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 1.829 | 26.1, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.931 | 2.587 | -4.14, 6.00 | 0.720 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.639 | 1.269 | -3.13, 1.85 | 0.618 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.229 | 1.721 | -3.60, 3.14 | 0.895 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.4 | 0.906 | 20.6, 24.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.379 | 1.281 | -2.89, 2.13 | 0.768 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.119 | 0.707 | -1.50, 1.27 | 0.867 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.16 | 0.959 | -3.04, 0.724 | 0.237 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 25.3 | 1.099 | 23.2, 27.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.345 | 1.554 | -2.70, 3.39 | 0.825 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.19 | 1.009 | -3.16, 0.793 | 0.248 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.595 | 1.371 | -2.09, 3.28 | 0.667 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.4 | 1.255 | 16.9, 21.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.69 | 1.774 | -0.788, 6.17 | 0.134 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.907 | 1.381 | -1.80, 3.61 | 0.516 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.74 | 1.879 | -5.42, 1.95 | 0.361 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.027 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.689 | 9.62, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.448 | 0.974 | -1.46, 2.36 | 0.647 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.722 | 0.638 | -0.529, 1.97 | 0.266 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.27 | 0.867 | -2.97, 0.432 | 0.153 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 14.9 | 0.989 | 13.0, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.862 | 1.399 | -3.60, 1.88 | 0.540 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.22 | 1.073 | -0.882, 3.33 | 0.262 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.32 | 1.459 | -4.18, 1.54 | 0.371 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.5 | 1.175 | 19.2, 23.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.655 | 1.661 | -2.60, 3.91 | 0.695 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.01 | 1.192 | -1.33, 3.34 | 0.405 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.12 | 1.620 | -5.29, 1.06 | 0.200 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.007 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.3 | 0.815 | 14.7, 17.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.483 | 1.153 | -1.78, 2.74 | 0.677 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.543 | 0.758 | -0.941, 2.03 | 0.478 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.167 | 1.029 | -1.85, 2.18 | 0.872 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.4 | 0.554 | 12.3, 14.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.586 | 0.783 | -0.948, 2.12 | 0.457 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.430 | 0.580 | -1.57, 0.706 | 0.463 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.279 | 0.788 | -1.27, 1.82 | 0.726 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.015 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.7 | 0.551 | 15.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.862 | 0.780 | -0.666, 2.39 | 0.273 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.617 | 0.552 | -0.465, 1.70 | 0.271 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.450 | 0.750 | -1.92, 1.02 | 0.552 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.563 | 10.7, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.07 | 0.796 | 0.508, 3.63 | 0.012 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.12 | 0.576 | -0.007, 2.25 | 0.059 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.941 | 0.783 | -2.48, 0.593 | 0.237 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.091 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 28.6 | 0.993 | 26.6, 30.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.93 | 1.404 | 0.180, 5.68 | 0.041 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.67 | 0.933 | -0.162, 3.49 | 0.082 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.31 | 1.267 | -3.80, 1.17 | 0.307 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.062 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 26.9 | 1.711 | 23.6, 30.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 2.419 | -4.74, 4.74 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.659 | 1.338 | -1.96, 3.28 | 0.626 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.590 | 1.816 | -4.15, 2.97 | 0.747 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.7 | 0.859 | 12.0, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.21 | 1.214 | -1.17, 3.59 | 0.324 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.366 | 0.860 | -1.32, 2.05 | 0.673 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.302 | 1.168 | -1.99, 2.59 | 0.798 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.9 | 0.685 | 14.6, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.14 | 0.969 | -0.761, 3.04 | 0.245 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.599 | 0.601 | -0.579, 1.78 | 0.326 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.754 | 0.816 | -2.35, 0.845 | 0.362 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.6 | 1.437 | 26.8, 32.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.34 | 2.032 | -1.64, 6.33 | 0.253 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.916 | 1.289 | -1.61, 3.44 | 0.482 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.389 | 1.750 | -3.82, 3.04 | 0.826 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.023 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.6 | 0.229 | 12.1, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.069 | 0.324 | -0.704, 0.566 | 0.832 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.626 | 0.384 | -0.127, 1.38 | 0.111 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.378 | 0.528 | -1.41, 0.657 | 0.478 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.8 | 0.648 | 13.5, 16.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.034 | 0.916 | -1.76, 1.83 | 0.970 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.029 | 0.806 | -1.55, 1.61 | 0.971 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.143 | 1.098 | -2.30, 2.01 | 0.897 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.9 | 0.745 | 12.4, 15.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.517 | 1.053 | -2.58, 1.55 | 0.625 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.071 | 0.888 | -1.81, 1.67 | 0.936 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.218 | 1.209 | -2.15, 2.59 | 0.858 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 28.7 | 1.282 | 26.1, 31.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.483 | 1.813 | -4.04, 3.07 | 0.791 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.074 | 1.531 | -3.08, 2.93 | 0.962 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.102 | 2.085 | -3.98, 4.19 | 0.961 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 19.2 | 0.761 | 17.8, 20.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.621 | 1.076 | -1.49, 2.73 | 0.566 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.145 | 0.714 | -1.25, 1.54 | 0.840 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.844 | 0.969 | -2.74, 1.06 | 0.390 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.5 | 0.488 | 13.5, 15.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.276 | 0.691 | -1.08, 1.63 | 0.691 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.539 | 0.671 | -0.776, 1.85 | 0.426 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.632 | 0.916 | -2.43, 1.16 | 0.494 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.613 | 11.2, 13.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -2.10 | 0.867 | -3.80, -0.404 | 0.018 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.975 | 0.597 | -2.14, 0.195 | 0.111 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.55 | 0.811 | -0.038, 3.14 | 0.064 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.065 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.7 | 0.721 | 9.24, 12.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.48 | 1.019 | -3.48, 0.515 | 0.151 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.022 | 0.602 | -1.16, 1.20 | 0.971 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.811 | 0.818 | -2.41, 0.791 | 0.328 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.056 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.5 | 0.734 | 9.08, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.72 | 1.038 | -3.76, 0.311 | 0.102 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.283 | 0.652 | -1.56, 0.996 | 0.667 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.363 | 0.886 | -2.10, 1.37 | 0.684 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.057 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.69 | 0.764 | 7.19, 10.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.828 | 1.080 | -2.94, 1.29 | 0.446 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.858 | 0.611 | -0.341, 2.06 | 0.170 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.63 | 0.830 | -3.25, -0.002 | 0.058 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.038 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.9 | 2.060 | 25.8, 33.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -4.03 | 2.913 | -9.74, 1.68 | 0.171 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.662 | 1.545 | -2.36, 3.69 | 0.671 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.88 | 2.095 | -6.99, 1.23 | 0.178 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.056 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.29) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.21 (95% CI [2.76, 3.65], t(85) = 14.22, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.69], t(85) = 0.22, p = 0.829; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.58])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.96], t(85) = 0.85, p = 0.395; Std. beta = 0.24, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.80])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -3.02e-03, 95% CI [-0.92, 0.91], t(85) = -6.47e-03, p = 0.995; Std. beta = -2.51e-03, 95% CI [-0.76, 0.76])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.45) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.34e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.93 (95% CI [16.93, 18.93], t(85) = 35.11, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-1.31, 1.52], t(85) = 0.14, p = 0.886; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.56])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.21], t(85) = -0.22, p = 0.825; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.56, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-1.25, 2.47], t(85) = 0.64, p = 0.521; Std. beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.91])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.69) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.76 (95% CI [27.91, 31.60], t(85) = 31.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-1.68, 3.54], t(85) = 0.70, p = 0.484; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.70])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-1.44, 2.44], t(85) = 0.50, p = 0.616; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-2.56, 2.71], t(85) = 0.06, p = 0.956; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.54])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.07 (95% CI [11.33, 12.81], t(85) = 31.91, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.94, 1.15], t(85) = 0.19, p = 0.847; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.57])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.88, 95% CI [-1.59, -0.17], t(85) = -2.44, p = 0.015; Std. beta = -0.44, 95% CI [-0.79, -0.09])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.71, 95% CI [-0.25, 1.68], t(85) = 1.45, p = 0.146; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.83])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.48 (95% CI [16.35, 18.62], t(85) = 30.13, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.68, 1.54], t(85) = -0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.85, 95% CI [-2.08, 0.37], t(85) = -1.36, p = 0.173; Std. beta = -0.27, 95% CI [-0.66, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.47, 95% CI [-0.19, 3.14], t(85) = 1.73, p = 0.083; Std. beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.99])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.07 (95% CI [12.03, 14.11], t(85) = 24.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.02, 1.92], t(85) = 0.60, p = 0.550; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.65])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.15], t(85) = 0.50, p = 0.620; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.51, 1.98], t(85) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.48 (95% CI [9.68, 11.29], t(85) = 25.51, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.07, 95% CI [-2.21, 0.07], t(85) = -1.84, p = 0.066; Std. beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.47, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.59], t(85) = -0.87, p = 0.386; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.32, 95% CI [-0.13, 2.78], t(85) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.06, 1.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.87) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.66 (95% CI [26.07, 33.24], t(85) = 16.21, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.93, 95% CI [-4.14, 6.00], t(85) = 0.36, p = 0.719; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.60])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.64, 95% CI [-3.13, 1.85], t(85) = -0.50, p = 0.614; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-3.60, 3.14], t(85) = -0.13, p = 0.894; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.41 (95% CI [20.64, 24.19], t(85) = 24.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-2.89, 2.13], t(85) = -0.30, p = 0.767; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.50, 1.27], t(85) = -0.17, p = 0.866; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.16, 95% CI [-3.04, 0.72], t(85) = -1.21, p = 0.228; Std. beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.56e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 25.34 (95% CI [23.19, 27.50], t(85) = 23.07, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-2.70, 3.39], t(85) = 0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.59])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.19, 95% CI [-3.16, 0.79], t(85) = -1.17, p = 0.240; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-2.09, 3.28], t(85) = 0.43, p = 0.664; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.57])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.38 (95% CI [16.92, 21.84], t(85) = 15.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.69, 95% CI [-0.79, 6.17], t(85) = 1.52, p = 0.130; Std. beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.90])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.91, 95% CI [-1.80, 3.61], t(85) = 0.66, p = 0.512; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.74, 95% CI [-5.42, 1.95], t(85) = -0.92, p = 0.355; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.78e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.97 (95% CI [9.62, 12.32], t(85) = 15.92, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-1.46, 2.36], t(85) = 0.46, p = 0.645; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.64])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.53, 1.97], t(85) = 1.13, p = 0.258; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.54])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.27, 95% CI [-2.97, 0.43], t(85) = -1.46, p = 0.144; Std. beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.12])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.93 (95% CI [12.99, 16.87], t(85) = 15.09, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.86, 95% CI [-3.60, 1.88], t(85) = -0.62, p = 0.538; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.22, 95% CI [-0.88, 3.33], t(85) = 1.14, p = 0.255; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.62])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.32, 95% CI [-4.18, 1.54], t(85) = -0.91, p = 0.365; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.29])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.61e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.48 (95% CI [19.18, 23.79], t(85) = 18.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-2.60, 3.91], t(85) = 0.39, p = 0.693; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-1.33, 3.34], t(85) = 0.84, p = 0.399; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.53])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.12, 95% CI [-5.29, 1.06], t(85) = -1.31, p = 0.192; Std. beta = -0.34, 95% CI [-0.84, 0.17])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.28 (95% CI [14.68, 17.87], t(85) = 19.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.48, 95% CI [-1.78, 2.74], t(85) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.94, 2.03], t(85) = 0.72, p = 0.473; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-1.85, 2.18], t(85) = 0.16, p = 0.871; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.50])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.38 (95% CI [12.29, 14.46], t(85) = 24.17, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.59, 95% CI [-0.95, 2.12], t(85) = 0.75, p = 0.454; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.32, 0.71])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-1.57, 0.71], t(85) = -0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.53, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.82], t(85) = 0.35, p = 0.724; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.72 (95% CI [15.64, 17.80], t(85) = 30.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.67, 2.39], t(85) = 1.11, p = 0.269; Std. beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.79])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.70], t(85) = 1.12, p = 0.263; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.56])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.92, 1.02], t(85) = -0.60, p = 0.549; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.09. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.83 (95% CI [10.72, 12.93], t(85) = 21.00, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.07, 95% CI [0.51, 3.63], t(85) = 2.60, p = 0.009; Std. beta = 0.66, 95% CI [0.16, 1.16])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [-7.24e-03, 2.25], t(85) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.36, 95% CI [-2.31e-03, 0.72])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.94, 95% CI [-2.48, 0.59], t(85) = -1.20, p = 0.229; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.79, 0.19])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.55 (95% CI [26.61, 30.50], t(85) = 28.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 2.93, 95% CI [0.18, 5.68], t(85) = 2.09, p = 0.037; Std. beta = 0.53, 95% CI [0.03, 1.03])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.67, 95% CI [-0.16, 3.49], t(85) = 1.79, p = 0.074; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.63])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.31, 95% CI [-3.80, 1.17], t(85) = -1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.84) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.85e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.93 (95% CI [23.58, 30.28], t(85) = 15.74, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01e-13, 95% CI [-4.74, 4.74], t(85) = 4.18e-14, p > .999; Std. beta = 1.51e-16, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-1.96, 3.28], t(85) = 0.49, p = 0.622; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.59, 95% CI [-4.15, 2.97], t(85) = -0.32, p = 0.745; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.66 (95% CI [11.97, 15.34], t(85) = 15.90, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.21, 95% CI [-1.17, 3.59], t(85) = 0.99, p = 0.320; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.77])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.37, 95% CI [-1.32, 2.05], t(85) = 0.43, p = 0.670; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-1.99, 2.59], t(85) = 0.26, p = 0.796; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.56])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.93 (95% CI [14.59, 17.27], t(85) = 23.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.14, 95% CI [-0.76, 3.04], t(85) = 1.17, p = 0.240; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.83])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.60, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.78], t(85) = 1.00, p = 0.319; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.48])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.75, 95% CI [-2.35, 0.84], t(85) = -0.92, p = 0.355; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.23])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.59 (95% CI [26.77, 32.40], t(85) = 20.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.34, 95% CI [-1.64, 6.33], t(85) = 1.15, p = 0.248; Std. beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.81])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.92, 95% CI [-1.61, 3.44], t(85) = 0.71, p = 0.477; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-3.82, 3.04], t(85) = -0.22, p = 0.824; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is weak (conditional R2 = 0.09) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.55 (95% CI [12.10, 13.00], t(85) = 54.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.70, 0.57], t(85) = -0.21, p = 0.831; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.63, 95% CI [-0.13, 1.38], t(85) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.51, 95% CI [-0.10, 1.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.38, 95% CI [-1.41, 0.66], t(85) = -0.72, p = 0.474; Std. beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.47e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.79 (95% CI [13.52, 16.06], t(85) = 22.83, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.76, 1.83], t(85) = 0.04, p = 0.970; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.54])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.61], t(85) = 0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = 8.59e-03, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.47])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-2.30, 2.01], t(85) = -0.13, p = 0.896; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.59])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.18e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.86 (95% CI [12.40, 15.32], t(85) = 18.62, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.52, 95% CI [-2.58, 1.55], t(85) = -0.49, p = 0.623; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.65, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-1.81, 1.67], t(85) = -0.08, p = 0.936; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.46, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-2.15, 2.59], t(85) = 0.18, p = 0.857; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.65])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.07e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.66 (95% CI [26.14, 31.17], t(85) = 22.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.48, 95% CI [-4.04, 3.07], t(85) = -0.27, p = 0.790; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-3.08, 2.93], t(85) = -0.05, p = 0.962; Std. beta = -0.01, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.43])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-3.98, 4.19], t(85) = 0.05, p = 0.961; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.59, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.09e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.24 (95% CI [17.75, 20.73], t(85) = 25.30, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.62, 95% CI [-1.49, 2.73], t(85) = 0.58, p = 0.564; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.67])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-1.25, 1.54], t(85) = 0.20, p = 0.839; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.84, 95% CI [-2.74, 1.06], t(85) = -0.87, p = 0.384; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.68, 0.26])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.44) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.86e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.48 (95% CI [13.53, 15.44], t(85) = 29.65, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-1.08, 1.63], t(85) = 0.40, p = 0.690; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.63])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.54, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.85], t(85) = 0.80, p = 0.422; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.71])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-2.43, 1.16], t(85) = -0.69, p = 0.490; Std. beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.45])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.21, 13.62], t(85) = 20.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -2.10, 95% CI [-3.80, -0.40], t(85) = -2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = -0.63, 95% CI [-1.13, -0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.97, 95% CI [-2.14, 0.19], t(85) = -1.63, p = 0.102; Std. beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.64, 0.06])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.55, 95% CI [-0.04, 3.14], t(85) = 1.91, p = 0.056; Std. beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.94])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.82) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.66 (95% CI [9.24, 12.07], t(85) = 14.79, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.48, 95% CI [-3.48, 0.51], t(85) = -1.46, p = 0.146; Std. beta = -0.37, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.13])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.16, 1.20], t(85) = 0.04, p = 0.971; Std. beta = 5.51e-03, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.81, 95% CI [-2.41, 0.79], t(85) = -0.99, p = 0.321; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.61, 0.20])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.52 (95% CI [9.08, 11.96], t(85) = 14.33, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.72, 95% CI [-3.76, 0.31], t(85) = -1.66, p = 0.097; Std. beta = -0.43, 95% CI [-0.93, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.28, 95% CI [-1.56, 1.00], t(85) = -0.43, p = 0.665; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-2.10, 1.37], t(85) = -0.41, p = 0.682; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.34])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.83) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.69 (95% CI [7.19, 10.19], t(85) = 11.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.83, 95% CI [-2.94, 1.29], t(85) = -0.77, p = 0.444; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.73, 0.32])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.86, 95% CI [-0.34, 2.06], t(85) = 1.40, p = 0.161; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.51])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.63, 95% CI [-3.25, -2.37e-03], t(85) = -1.96, p = 0.050; Std. beta = -0.40, 95% CI [-0.80, -5.84e-04])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.86) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.06. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.86 (95% CI [25.82, 33.90], t(85) = 14.50, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.03, 95% CI [-9.74, 1.68], t(85) = -1.38, p = 0.166; Std. beta = -0.36, 95% CI [-0.86, 0.15])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [-2.36, 3.69], t(85) = 0.43, p = 0.668; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.88, 95% CI [-6.99, 1.23], t(85) = -1.37, p = 0.169; Std. beta = -0.26, 95% CI [-0.62, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 294.543 | 302.075 | -144.271 | 288.543 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 298.862 | 313.927 | -143.431 | 286.862 | 1.681 | 3 | 0.641 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 437.836 | 445.369 | -215.918 | 431.836 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 443.034 | 458.100 | -215.517 | 431.034 | 0.802 | 3 | 0.849 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 535.431 | 542.964 | -264.715 | 529.431 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 540.151 | 555.216 | -264.076 | 528.151 | 1.280 | 3 | 0.734 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 368.545 | 376.077 | -181.272 | 362.545 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 368.552 | 383.618 | -178.276 | 356.552 | 5.992 | 3 | 0.112 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 450.772 | 458.304 | -222.386 | 444.772 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 453.466 | 468.531 | -220.733 | 441.466 | 3.306 | 3 | 0.347 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 425.441 | 432.973 | -209.720 | 419.441 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 425.247 | 440.312 | -206.623 | 413.247 | 6.194 | 3 | 0.103 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 401.069 | 408.602 | -197.535 | 395.069 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 401.946 | 417.011 | -194.973 | 389.946 | 5.124 | 3 | 0.163 |
symptom | null | 3 | 630.397 | 637.929 | -312.198 | 624.397 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 635.436 | 650.501 | -311.718 | 623.436 | 0.960 | 3 | 0.811 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 513.263 | 520.796 | -253.632 | 507.263 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 515.009 | 530.074 | -251.504 | 503.009 | 4.254 | 3 | 0.235 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 556.047 | 563.579 | -275.023 | 550.047 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 560.184 | 575.249 | -274.092 | 548.184 | 1.862 | 3 | 0.601 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 591.699 | 599.231 | -292.849 | 585.699 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 595.114 | 610.179 | -291.557 | 583.114 | 2.585 | 3 | 0.460 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 471.966 | 479.498 | -232.983 | 465.966 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 475.773 | 490.838 | -231.886 | 463.773 | 2.193 | 3 | 0.533 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 547.286 | 554.818 | -270.643 | 541.286 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 551.031 | 566.097 | -269.516 | 539.031 | 2.254 | 3 | 0.521 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 574.170 | 581.702 | -284.085 | 568.170 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 578.383 | 593.449 | -283.192 | 566.383 | 1.786 | 3 | 0.618 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 502.499 | 510.032 | -248.250 | 496.499 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 506.616 | 521.681 | -247.308 | 494.616 | 1.883 | 3 | 0.597 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 438.769 | 446.301 | -216.384 | 432.769 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 443.305 | 458.370 | -215.653 | 431.305 | 1.463 | 3 | 0.691 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 436.374 | 443.906 | -215.187 | 430.374 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 439.939 | 455.004 | -213.970 | 427.939 | 2.434 | 3 | 0.487 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 448.504 | 456.037 | -221.252 | 442.504 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 445.026 | 460.092 | -216.513 | 433.026 | 9.478 | 3 | 0.024 |
els | null | 3 | 544.150 | 551.682 | -269.075 | 538.150 | |||
els | random | 6 | 543.092 | 558.157 | -265.546 | 531.092 | 7.058 | 3 | 0.070 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 625.090 | 632.622 | -309.545 | 619.090 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 630.823 | 645.888 | -309.412 | 618.823 | 0.266 | 3 | 0.966 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 516.778 | 524.311 | -255.389 | 510.778 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 520.512 | 535.577 | -254.256 | 508.512 | 2.267 | 3 | 0.519 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 467.528 | 475.061 | -230.764 | 461.528 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 471.426 | 486.491 | -229.713 | 459.426 | 2.102 | 3 | 0.552 |
shs | null | 3 | 603.640 | 611.172 | -298.820 | 597.640 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 607.552 | 622.617 | -297.776 | 595.552 | 2.088 | 3 | 0.554 |
esteem | null | 3 | 301.966 | 309.499 | -147.983 | 295.966 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 304.309 | 319.374 | -146.154 | 292.309 | 3.657 | 3 | 0.301 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 475.677 | 483.210 | -234.839 | 469.677 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 481.651 | 496.716 | -234.825 | 469.651 | 0.026 | 3 | 0.999 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 498.931 | 506.464 | -246.466 | 492.931 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 504.676 | 519.741 | -246.338 | 492.676 | 0.255 | 3 | 0.968 |
mlq | null | 3 | 597.736 | 605.269 | -295.868 | 591.736 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 603.660 | 618.725 | -295.830 | 591.660 | 0.076 | 3 | 0.995 |
empower | null | 3 | 489.885 | 497.418 | -241.943 | 483.885 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 494.538 | 509.604 | -241.269 | 482.538 | 1.347 | 3 | 0.718 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 429.961 | 437.493 | -211.980 | 423.961 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 435.256 | 450.321 | -211.628 | 423.256 | 0.705 | 3 | 0.872 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 459.240 | 466.772 | -226.620 | 453.240 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 457.533 | 472.598 | -222.767 | 445.533 | 7.707 | 3 | 0.052 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 476.840 | 484.372 | -235.420 | 470.840 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 477.614 | 492.679 | -232.807 | 465.614 | 5.226 | 3 | 0.156 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 483.614 | 491.147 | -238.807 | 477.614 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 484.772 | 499.837 | -236.386 | 472.772 | 4.843 | 3 | 0.184 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 484.873 | 492.406 | -239.437 | 478.873 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 485.509 | 500.574 | -236.754 | 473.509 | 5.365 | 3 | 0.147 |
sss | null | 3 | 661.691 | 669.224 | -327.846 | 655.691 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 661.988 | 677.053 | -324.994 | 649.988 | 5.703 | 3 | 0.127 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 29 | 3.21 ± 1.21 | 29 | 3.28 ± 1.21 | 0.829 | -0.067 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 15 | 3.50 ± 1.21 | -0.282 | 18 | 3.56 ± 1.21 | -0.279 | 0.876 | -0.064 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 29 | 17.93 ± 2.75 | 29 | 18.03 ± 2.75 | 0.886 | -0.050 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 15 | 17.78 ± 2.64 | 0.075 | 18 | 18.49 ± 2.67 | -0.223 | 0.444 | -0.348 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 29 | 29.76 ± 5.07 | 29 | 30.69 ± 5.07 | 0.487 | -0.330 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 15 | 30.26 ± 4.47 | -0.176 | 18 | 31.26 ± 4.60 | -0.202 | 0.527 | -0.357 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 29 | 12.07 ± 2.04 | 29 | 12.17 ± 2.04 | 0.847 | -0.101 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 15 | 11.19 ± 1.75 | 0.864 | 18 | 12.00 ± 1.81 | 0.164 | 0.191 | -0.800 |
ras_goal | 1st | 29 | 17.48 ± 3.12 | 29 | 17.41 ± 3.12 | 0.933 | 0.039 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 15 | 16.63 ± 2.77 | 0.478 | 18 | 18.03 ± 2.85 | -0.348 | 0.157 | -0.787 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 29 | 13.07 ± 2.86 | 29 | 13.52 ± 2.86 | 0.553 | -0.341 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 15 | 13.30 ± 2.40 | -0.176 | 18 | 14.48 ± 2.50 | -0.733 | 0.171 | -0.898 |
ras_domination | 1st | 29 | 10.48 ± 2.21 | 29 | 9.41 ± 2.21 | 0.070 | 0.672 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 15 | 10.01 ± 2.10 | 0.296 | 18 | 10.27 ± 2.13 | -0.536 | 0.732 | -0.160 |
symptom | 1st | 29 | 29.66 ± 9.85 | 29 | 30.59 ± 9.85 | 0.720 | -0.264 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 15 | 29.02 ± 7.85 | 0.181 | 18 | 29.72 ± 8.32 | 0.246 | 0.804 | -0.199 |
slof_work | 1st | 29 | 22.41 ± 4.88 | 29 | 22.03 ± 4.88 | 0.768 | 0.192 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 15 | 22.29 ± 3.98 | 0.060 | 18 | 20.76 ± 4.19 | 0.645 | 0.284 | 0.777 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 29 | 25.34 ± 5.92 | 29 | 25.69 ± 5.92 | 0.825 | -0.121 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 15 | 24.16 ± 5.02 | 0.417 | 18 | 25.10 ± 5.22 | 0.208 | 0.600 | -0.330 |
satisfaction | 1st | 29 | 19.38 ± 6.76 | 29 | 22.07 ± 6.76 | 0.134 | -0.681 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 15 | 20.29 ± 6.04 | -0.230 | 18 | 21.24 ± 6.20 | 0.210 | 0.657 | -0.241 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 29 | 10.97 ± 3.71 | 29 | 11.41 ± 3.71 | 0.647 | -0.249 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 15 | 11.69 ± 3.15 | -0.401 | 18 | 10.87 ± 3.28 | 0.303 | 0.468 | 0.455 |
mhc_social | 1st | 29 | 14.93 ± 5.33 | 29 | 14.07 ± 5.33 | 0.540 | 0.281 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 15 | 16.15 ± 4.74 | -0.399 | 18 | 13.97 ± 4.87 | 0.033 | 0.197 | 0.713 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 29 | 21.48 ± 6.33 | 29 | 22.14 ± 6.33 | 0.695 | -0.194 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 15 | 22.49 ± 5.52 | -0.297 | 18 | 21.03 ± 5.70 | 0.328 | 0.458 | 0.432 |
resilisnce | 1st | 29 | 16.28 ± 4.39 | 29 | 16.76 ± 4.39 | 0.677 | -0.226 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 15 | 16.82 ± 3.73 | -0.254 | 18 | 17.47 ± 3.88 | -0.333 | 0.626 | -0.304 |
social_provision | 1st | 29 | 13.38 ± 2.98 | 29 | 13.97 ± 2.98 | 0.457 | -0.355 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 15 | 12.95 ± 2.62 | 0.261 | 18 | 13.81 ± 2.71 | 0.092 | 0.355 | -0.524 |
els_value_living | 1st | 29 | 16.72 ± 2.97 | 29 | 17.59 ± 2.97 | 0.273 | -0.551 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 15 | 17.34 ± 2.58 | -0.394 | 18 | 17.75 ± 2.67 | -0.107 | 0.654 | -0.263 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 29 | 11.83 ± 3.03 | 29 | 13.90 ± 3.03 | 0.012 | -1.264 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 15 | 12.95 ± 2.65 | -0.686 | 18 | 14.08 ± 2.74 | -0.110 | 0.234 | -0.689 |
els | 1st | 29 | 28.55 ± 5.35 | 29 | 31.48 ± 5.35 | 0.041 | -1.113 | ||
els | 2nd | 15 | 30.22 ± 4.56 | -0.633 | 18 | 31.84 ± 4.74 | -0.134 | 0.322 | -0.614 |
social_connect | 1st | 29 | 26.93 ± 9.21 | 29 | 26.93 ± 9.21 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 15 | 27.59 ± 7.52 | -0.176 | 18 | 27.00 ± 7.91 | -0.019 | 0.827 | 0.158 |
shs_agency | 1st | 29 | 13.66 ± 4.62 | 29 | 14.86 ± 4.62 | 0.324 | -0.495 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 15 | 14.02 ± 4.02 | -0.150 | 18 | 15.53 ± 4.15 | -0.274 | 0.293 | -0.619 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 29 | 15.93 ± 3.69 | 29 | 17.07 ± 3.69 | 0.245 | -0.674 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 15 | 16.53 ± 3.09 | -0.355 | 18 | 16.91 ± 3.23 | 0.092 | 0.729 | -0.227 |
shs | 1st | 29 | 29.59 ± 7.74 | 29 | 31.93 ± 7.74 | 0.253 | -0.646 | ||
shs | 2nd | 15 | 30.50 ± 6.52 | -0.253 | 18 | 32.46 ± 6.80 | -0.145 | 0.402 | -0.539 |
esteem | 1st | 29 | 12.55 ± 1.23 | 29 | 12.48 ± 1.23 | 0.832 | 0.058 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 15 | 13.18 ± 1.25 | -0.523 | 18 | 12.73 ± 1.25 | -0.207 | 0.310 | 0.373 |
mlq_search | 1st | 29 | 14.79 ± 3.49 | 29 | 14.83 ± 3.49 | 0.970 | -0.015 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 15 | 14.82 ± 3.25 | -0.013 | 18 | 14.71 ± 3.30 | 0.049 | 0.924 | 0.047 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 29 | 13.86 ± 4.01 | 29 | 13.34 ± 4.01 | 0.625 | 0.202 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 15 | 13.79 ± 3.68 | 0.028 | 18 | 13.49 ± 3.75 | -0.057 | 0.819 | 0.117 |
mlq | 1st | 29 | 28.66 ± 6.90 | 29 | 28.17 ± 6.90 | 0.791 | 0.109 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 15 | 28.58 ± 6.34 | 0.017 | 18 | 28.20 ± 6.47 | -0.006 | 0.865 | 0.086 |
empower | 1st | 29 | 19.24 ± 4.10 | 29 | 19.86 ± 4.10 | 0.566 | -0.308 | ||
empower | 2nd | 15 | 19.39 ± 3.49 | -0.072 | 18 | 19.16 ± 3.63 | 0.347 | 0.858 | 0.111 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 29 | 14.48 ± 2.63 | 29 | 14.76 ± 2.63 | 0.691 | -0.139 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 15 | 15.02 ± 2.53 | -0.273 | 18 | 14.67 ± 2.56 | 0.047 | 0.690 | 0.180 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 29 | 12.41 ± 3.30 | 29 | 10.31 ± 3.30 | 0.018 | 1.246 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 15 | 11.44 ± 2.84 | 0.577 | 18 | 10.89 ± 2.95 | -0.341 | 0.586 | 0.327 |
sss_affective | 1st | 29 | 10.66 ± 3.88 | 29 | 9.17 ± 3.88 | 0.151 | 0.878 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 15 | 10.68 ± 3.21 | -0.013 | 18 | 8.38 ± 3.37 | 0.467 | 0.049 | 1.358 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 29 | 10.52 ± 3.95 | 29 | 8.79 ± 3.95 | 0.102 | 0.940 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 15 | 10.23 ± 3.32 | 0.154 | 18 | 8.15 ± 3.47 | 0.352 | 0.082 | 1.138 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 29 | 8.69 ± 4.11 | 29 | 7.86 ± 4.11 | 0.446 | 0.484 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 15 | 9.55 ± 3.37 | -0.501 | 18 | 7.09 ± 3.54 | 0.451 | 0.045 | 1.436 |
sss | 1st | 29 | 29.86 ± 11.09 | 29 | 25.83 ± 11.09 | 0.171 | 0.936 | ||
sss | 2nd | 15 | 30.52 ± 8.97 | -0.154 | 18 | 23.61 ± 9.47 | 0.515 | 0.035 | 1.605 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(82.47) = 0.22, p = 0.829, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.57 to 0.70)
2st
t(86.87) = 0.16, p = 0.876, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-0.77 to 0.91)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(76.77) = 0.14, p = 0.886, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.33 to 1.54)
2st
t(86.94) = 0.77, p = 0.444, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-1.13 to 2.56)
ras_confidence
1st
t(66.97) = 0.70, p = 0.487, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-1.73 to 3.59)
2st
t(86.04) = 0.63, p = 0.527, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-2.14 to 4.15)
ras_willingness
1st
t(64.75) = 0.19, p = 0.847, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.96 to 1.17)
2st
t(84.59) = 1.32, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.80, 95% CI (-0.42 to 2.05)
ras_goal
1st
t(67.61) = -0.08, p = 0.933, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.71 to 1.57)
2st
t(86.30) = 1.43, p = 0.157, Cohen d = -0.79, 95% CI (-0.55 to 3.36)
ras_reliance
1st
t(63.24) = 0.60, p = 0.553, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-1.05 to 1.95)
2st
t(82.85) = 1.38, p = 0.171, Cohen d = -0.90, 95% CI (-0.52 to 2.88)
ras_domination
1st
t(75.24) = -1.84, p = 0.070, Cohen d = 0.67, 95% CI (-2.23 to 0.09)
2st
t(86.97) = 0.34, p = 0.732, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.72)
symptom
1st
t(60.24) = 0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-4.24 to 6.10)
2st
t(76.35) = 0.25, p = 0.804, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-4.91 to 6.32)
slof_work
1st
t(61.49) = -0.30, p = 0.768, Cohen d = 0.19, 95% CI (-2.94 to 2.18)
2st
t(79.68) = -1.08, p = 0.284, Cohen d = 0.78, 95% CI (-4.37 to 1.30)
slof_relationship
1st
t(63.97) = 0.22, p = 0.825, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.76 to 3.45)
2st
t(83.79) = 0.53, p = 0.600, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-2.61 to 4.49)
satisfaction
1st
t(68.26) = 1.52, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.68, 95% CI (-0.85 to 6.23)
2st
t(86.50) = 0.45, p = 0.657, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-3.30 to 5.20)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(64.13) = 0.46, p = 0.647, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.50 to 2.39)
2st
t(83.96) = -0.73, p = 0.468, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-3.05 to 1.41)
mhc_social
1st
t(67.82) = -0.62, p = 0.540, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.65 to 1.93)
2st
t(86.37) = -1.30, p = 0.197, Cohen d = 0.71, 95% CI (-5.52 to 1.15)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(66.07) = 0.39, p = 0.695, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-2.66 to 3.97)
2st
t(85.58) = -0.75, p = 0.458, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-5.35 to 2.43)
resilisnce
1st
t(64.18) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.82 to 2.79)
2st
t(84.02) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.99 to 3.29)
social_provision
1st
t(66.85) = 0.75, p = 0.457, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.15)
2st
t(85.99) = 0.93, p = 0.355, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.98 to 2.71)
els_value_living
1st
t(65.75) = 1.11, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (-0.70 to 2.42)
2st
t(85.38) = 0.45, p = 0.654, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.41 to 2.23)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(66.27) = 2.60, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -1.26, 95% CI (0.48 to 3.66)
2st
t(85.69) = 1.20, p = 0.234, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.74 to 3.00)
els
1st
t(64.40) = 2.09, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -1.11, 95% CI (0.13 to 5.74)
2st
t(84.25) = 1.00, p = 0.322, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (-1.61 to 4.84)
social_connect
1st
t(61.52) = 0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-4.84 to 4.84)
2st
t(79.75) = -0.22, p = 0.827, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-5.95 to 4.77)
shs_agency
1st
t(65.75) = 0.99, p = 0.324, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-1.22 to 3.63)
2st
t(85.37) = 1.06, p = 0.293, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (-1.33 to 4.34)
shs_pathway
1st
t(63.16) = 1.17, p = 0.245, Cohen d = -0.67, 95% CI (-0.80 to 3.07)
2st
t(82.74) = 0.35, p = 0.729, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.81 to 2.58)
shs
1st
t(63.54) = 1.15, p = 0.253, Cohen d = -0.65, 95% CI (-1.71 to 6.40)
2st
t(83.26) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-2.67 to 6.58)
esteem
1st
t(86.79) = -0.21, p = 0.832, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.71 to 0.58)
2st
t(86.99) = -1.02, p = 0.310, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-1.32 to 0.42)
mlq_search
1st
t(72.58) = 0.04, p = 0.970, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.79 to 1.86)
2st
t(86.99) = -0.10, p = 0.924, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-2.38 to 2.17)
mlq_presence
1st
t(70.93) = -0.49, p = 0.625, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.62 to 1.58)
2st
t(86.92) = -0.23, p = 0.819, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-2.88 to 2.28)
mlq
1st
t(70.96) = -0.27, p = 0.791, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-4.10 to 3.13)
2st
t(86.93) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-4.83 to 4.07)
empower
1st
t(64.37) = 0.58, p = 0.566, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-1.53 to 2.77)
2st
t(84.23) = -0.18, p = 0.858, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.70 to 2.25)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(77.17) = 0.40, p = 0.691, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.10 to 1.65)
2st
t(86.93) = -0.40, p = 0.690, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-2.12 to 1.41)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(65.12) = -2.43, p = 0.018, Cohen d = 1.25, 95% CI (-3.84 to -0.37)
2st
t(84.91) = -0.55, p = 0.586, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.56 to 1.46)
sss_affective
1st
t(62.42) = -1.46, p = 0.151, Cohen d = 0.88, 95% CI (-3.52 to 0.55)
2st
t(81.54) = -2.00, p = 0.049, Cohen d = 1.36, 95% CI (-4.58 to -0.01)
sss_behavior
1st
t(63.38) = -1.66, p = 0.102, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-3.80 to 0.35)
2st
t(83.04) = -1.76, p = 0.082, Cohen d = 1.14, 95% CI (-4.44 to 0.27)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(61.82) = -0.77, p = 0.446, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.99 to 1.33)
2st
t(80.39) = -2.04, p = 0.045, Cohen d = 1.44, 95% CI (-4.86 to -0.05)
sss
1st
t(61.03) = -1.38, p = 0.171, Cohen d = 0.94, 95% CI (-9.86 to 1.79)
2st
t(78.56) = -2.15, p = 0.035, Cohen d = 1.60, 95% CI (-13.32 to -0.51)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(42.26) = 0.89, p = 0.752, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.94)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(39.23) = 0.70, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.86 to 1.77)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(35.16) = 0.62, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-1.29 to 2.43)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(34.30) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-0.85 to 0.51)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(35.41) = 1.07, p = 0.583, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.55 to 1.79)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(33.73) = 2.24, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.73, 95% CI (0.09 to 1.84)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(38.54) = 1.68, p = 0.201, Cohen d = -0.54, 95% CI (-0.17 to 1.88)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(32.60) = -0.75, p = 0.923, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-3.24 to 1.50)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(33.07) = -1.96, p = 0.117, Cohen d = 0.65, 95% CI (-2.60 to 0.05)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(34.01) = -0.63, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.48 to 1.30)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(35.66) = -0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-3.43 to 1.77)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(34.07) = -0.93, p = 0.722, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.74 to 0.65)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(35.49) = -0.10, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-2.12 to 1.92)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(34.81) = -1.01, p = 0.642, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-3.35 to 1.13)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(34.09) = 1.02, p = 0.633, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.71 to 2.13)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(35.11) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.24 to 0.94)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(34.69) = 0.33, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.87 to 1.20)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(34.88) = 0.34, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.90 to 1.26)
els
1st vs 2st
t(34.17) = 0.41, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-1.40 to 2.10)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(33.08) = 0.06, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.43 to 2.57)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(34.68) = 0.84, p = 0.812, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.95 to 2.28)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(33.70) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.28 to 0.97)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(33.84) = 0.44, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.89 to 2.94)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(46.58) = 0.68, p = 0.999, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.49 to 0.98)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(37.40) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.63 to 1.41)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(36.72) = 0.18, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.06, 95% CI (-1.53 to 1.82)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(36.73) = 0.02, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-2.86 to 2.91)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(34.16) = -1.06, p = 0.592, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-2.04 to 0.64)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(39.42) = -0.15, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-1.36 to 1.18)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(34.44) = 1.05, p = 0.606, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.54 to 1.70)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(33.42) = -1.42, p = 0.328, Cohen d = 0.47, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.34)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(33.78) = -1.07, p = 0.580, Cohen d = 0.35, 95% CI (-1.87 to 0.58)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(33.19) = -1.37, p = 0.359, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.37)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(32.90) = -1.56, p = 0.255, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-5.11 to 0.67)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(45.69) = 0.84, p = 0.809, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.99)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(41.72) = -0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.08, 95% CI (-1.57 to 1.27)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(36.37) = 0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.52 to 2.52)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(35.26) = -2.43, p = 0.041, Cohen d = 0.86, 95% CI (-1.62 to -0.14)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(36.70) = -1.35, p = 0.368, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-2.13 to 0.42)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(34.51) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.72 to 1.19)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(40.81) = -0.86, p = 0.792, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-1.58 to 0.64)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(33.05) = -0.50, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-3.23 to 1.95)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(33.66) = -0.17, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-1.56 to 1.32)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(34.87) = -1.17, p = 0.501, Cohen d = 0.42, 95% CI (-3.25 to 0.87)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(37.02) = 0.65, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-1.91 to 3.73)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(34.95) = 1.13, p = 0.536, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.58 to 2.02)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(36.80) = 1.13, p = 0.531, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (-0.97 to 3.41)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(35.92) = 0.84, p = 0.815, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-1.43 to 3.44)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(34.97) = 0.71, p = 0.960, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.00 to 2.09)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(36.31) = -0.74, p = 0.931, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-1.61 to 0.75)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(35.76) = 1.11, p = 0.547, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.74)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(36.01) = 1.94, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (-0.05 to 2.30)
els
1st vs 2st
t(35.08) = 1.78, p = 0.168, Cohen d = -0.63, 95% CI (-0.24 to 3.57)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(33.67) = 0.49, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-2.07 to 3.39)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(35.75) = 0.42, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.39 to 2.12)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(34.47) = 0.99, p = 0.656, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.63 to 1.83)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(34.66) = 0.71, p = 0.968, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-1.71 to 3.55)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(51.24) = 1.61, p = 0.226, Cohen d = -0.52, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.41)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(39.31) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.67)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(38.42) = -0.08, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.88 to 1.74)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(38.44) = -0.05, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-3.20 to 3.05)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(35.07) = 0.20, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.31 to 1.60)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(41.97) = 0.80, p = 0.862, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.83 to 1.91)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(35.44) = -1.62, p = 0.226, Cohen d = 0.58, 95% CI (-2.19 to 0.24)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(34.11) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.21 to 1.25)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(34.58) = -0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.15, 95% CI (-1.61 to 1.05)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(33.82) = 1.40, p = 0.343, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (-0.39 to 2.11)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(33.43) = 0.43, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-2.49 to 3.81)
Plot
